The Case For Georgia Tech And The Option Offense

[Minawreck]

They've taken a step back the last two seasons in my opinion. Moral victories aren't happy news anymore in Annapolis. They oddly play up or down to their opponent it seems.

well in review, I guess their trajectory is good comparing the last two years to their previous 2. No doubt Navy isn't in a position to re-load and will come at the college football scene in waves so to speak.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

IMHO the offense we run is only as good as the QB. We have seen what a mediocre QB can do. When the right guy is pulling the trigger it is a thing of beauty. That is why I am so concerned about the injury to Byerley. Looks like the guys behind him though potentially good aren't ready yet.

I'll agree that the qb is the most important part, but we're humming right now because we are better across the board - all 11.

 

[Minawreck]

I'll agree that the qb is the most important part, but we're humming right now because we are better across the board - all 11.

If this is a comparison of 2015 to TW's teams then yes you're absolutely right.

 

[GaTech4ever]

If you shorten the game you simplify it. Its like chess. Any Master will tell you if you have a material advantage, exchange pieces. Limit the chances for complexity.

If I'm ahead 21-17 and have a 9-minute scoring drive that runs deep into the 4th quarter, that is far, far more advantageous than scoring fast, all the usual arguments about ball control & fatigue aside it simplifies the game and reduces the opponent's chances. Think GT vs Miami last year. If the Jackets scored twice on long TD passes to go up by 11 early in the 3rd quarter, anything could happen. Instead they took the game completely away from the Canes.

Yes, I get that and that's why I said there are certain times when a death march is more beneficial. I was essentially saying I don't think anyone has the opinion that they'd prefer less big-time plays and three/four yards every down for the majority of a game. But yes, there are times when death marches are preferable. I think there's also something to be said for being able to score fast early, with a D that can hold their own, and then death march in the 4th - but that's just how I like watching us play the most.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

...eeeehhh I'd prefer the 2 NFL receivers we lost to the ones we have now, but yeah we look pretty good.

I was referring to 2012, the Tevin/Vad year.

Btw, I'll see your two NFL wr's and raise you one NFL RG, t'boot.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Yes, I get that and that's why I said there are certain times when a death march is more beneficial. I was essentially saying I don't think anyone has the opinion that they'd prefer less big-time plays and three/four yards every down for the majority of a game. But yes, there are times when death marches are preferable. I think there's also something to be said for being able to score fast early, with a D that can hold their own, and then death march in the 4th - but that's just how I like watching us play the most.

Death marches with td's are always preferrable to quick strike td's. (End of half/game scenarios excluded) The operative word is td. As long as we're scoring on the long drives, I'll take them all day, every day. The problem with long, slow drives is that they raise the likelyhood of not scoring.

The advantages of long, time consuming scoring drives are numerous.

 

[AE 87]

well in review, I guess their trajectory is good comparing the last two years to their previous 2. No doubt Navy isn't in a position to re-load and will come at the college football scene in waves so to speak.

Not bad. But if you really want to get to @dressedcheeseside level of bad puns, then "will have to ride the waves in their approach to the college football scene"

 

[Northeast Stinger]

"will have to ride the waves in their approach to the college football scene"

That's 1940's pornography right there.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

That's 1940's pornography right there.

Yeah, both of us have our minds in the gutter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAVES

 

[Sideways]

My thoughts are the triple option (I refuse to call it a spread with the quarterback under center. Call it a flexbone if it suits you) is absolutely PERFECT for Tech. It largely negates many of our recruiting disadvantages while helping our team in so many ways. Consider: It is a ball control offense that keeps our defense off the field. As one wag put it: "The triple option is where fourth quarters go to die". We had winning seasons with players that would never have seen the field in power 5 conferences. It maximizes the speed capabilities of small players willing and able to block. It builds team spirit and accountability with its emphasis on total team effort in blocking and decision making. It eliminates the need for pro style gunslingers and super star tailbacks and wide receivers. To be sure, great or near great players are needed at certain positions, most notably quarterback and b back but what can you say about an offense that was successful the first year with a walk on center that moved from defensive line and a tight end lined up at tackle? We have used converted quarterbacks at both A and B back with success. Not many offenses, if any, have proven to be so versatile. Is it a panacea? Decidedly not. Power 5 teams and fans will shun it. It will not work without dedicated linemen and they really have to be more than just serviceable. As we have seen, it is not for everyone. Quarterbacks take a pounding as do B backs but on the whole it has been a tremendous boon for Georgia Tech. The science, as some would say, is settled.

 

[AE 87]

My thoughts are the triple option (I refuse to call it a spread with the quarterback under center. Call it a flexbone if it suits you) is absolutely PERFECT for Tech. It largely negates many of our recruiting disadvantages while helping our team in so many ways. Consider: It is a ball control offense that keeps our defense off the field. As one wag put it: "The triple option is where fourth quarters go to die". We had winning seasons with players that would never have seen the field in power 5 conferences. It maximizes the speed capabilities of small players willing and able to block. It builds team spirit and accountability with its emphasis on total team effort in blocking and decision making. It eliminates the need for pro style gunslingers and super star tailbacks and wide receivers. To be sure, great or near great players are needed at certain positions, most notably quarterback and b back but what can you say about an offense that was successful the first year with a walk on center that moved from defensive line and a tight end lined up at tackle? We have used converted quarterbacks at both A and B back with success. Not many offenses, if any, have proven to be so versatile. Is it a panacea? Decidedly not. Power 5 teams and fans will shun it. It will not work without dedicated linemen and they really have to be more than just serviceable. As we have seen, it is not for everyone. Quarterbacks take a pounding as do B backs but on the whole it has been a tremendous boon for Georgia Tech. The science, as some would say, is settled.

Ok. I admit the math between love it and don't like it on this post is too much for me.